I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin. Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it ....
Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.
Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.
IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.
As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.